Watching the news on the war in Iraq(I only get BBC where I am at)...I keep hearing the phrase "embedded journalist"to indicate a reporter,etc.attached to the US Army,the British,forces,etc. Why "embedded"? Anyone know? This conjures up quite an incongruous mental picture.Is this usage limited to BBC,or in general usage?Anyone know if this use of"embedded" is a journalistic invention or simply militaryspeak?Formerly people would say something like'the journalist attached to the Special Forces".Does "embedding" differ significantly from being"attached"....or is it just military lingo?

Dear bnix,
" Embedded " has become one of the most overused words of this " armed conflict " ( it's not REALLY a war ). It's " military jargon ", and the military, as usual, can never resist taking a simple expression ( attached to ) and transforming it in its own special way ( e.g. " Yes " to " Affirmative " ).
Regards,
John

I don't even get BBC here in China, but the term "embedded journalists" is a new and faddish moniker that we have got to accept, if not in good grace then at least with appropriate cynicism!
If anybody has ever had any doubts about certain media being in the hands of certain national "leaders", then now is the time to climb down from the palm tree and feel the hard reality under one's feet.
Those who can read news in languages other than (American) English know which of the "famous" TV stations and "news-"papers are mouthpieces of Greedy Brush of Washing Town, W.C., capital of Illusistan! We have known that there are essentially two factualities - facts that anybody can see if they are willing to see, and facts that others want us to believe in!
Living in Third-World countries, we immediately learn to rely on our own sensorial perceptions, and we know we must take news from the media offered by our host countries with a pinch of salt; for some this war (lead by Greedy Brush, Uncle Rummy, Auntie Risible et al.) is a belief-shattering experience, a wake-up call that reminds them that even in the so-called "free" world information is being manipulated by the mighty! Don't refer to them by name if you dislike their lies and propaganda - you will be called "antiillusistanist" or, maybe, "antiillusistalinist".
But that should not detract from the discovery that even the followers and blind believers and naive supporters of Greedy "Dude" Brush in his personal vendetta against a self-proclaimed ruler of a small country in the Near East need to be constantly brainwashed, lied to, deceived and misled by so-called "journalists".
These "journalists" go to bed with the military in exchange for physical protection and those news that the military deem consumable.
What was the neologism of the year in 1991?
"Collateral", as in "collateral damage"!
Yes, if you are not a cynic you would never think up such quaint terminology!

Dear scot47,
Aha - perhaps it's all the result of a typo. Instead of " embedded ", it should have been " inbedded ", since those " journalists " ( hmm. almost had a typo myself there; I first wrote " journalosts ", which, come to think on it, might have been more appropriate ) are " in bed " with the military ( in all probability, both literally and figuratively ).
Regards,
John

There is a great article on znet---sorry no link but I think it's www.zmag.org or do a msn search. It was an interview with Fisk of the Independent UK newspaper when they got him out of bed after some bombings. They called the piece "embedded journalist" as in just got out of bed HA HA hA ... It details the scare tactics the coalition use to try and get journalists to leave---"There is an Iraqi plot to kidnap journalists..." They said the same in the last Gulf war and Kosovo and and and.. It is a pack of lies. Great article. As for the term "in bed with the military " sounds right...

"Embedded journalist" is more than just a new faddish monicker adopted by major media outlets looking to add sophistication to their newscasts. It is an official policy of the American government which was formulated in the months prior to the present Iraq war. As far as I know there are no "embedded journalists" with British forces. Officially, it is intended to give the television watching public never before seen first hand access to the battlefield. It has also been heralded as a way to give media unbridaled access to all facets of the conflict.

The reality of course is entirely different. All embedded journalists were required to go through one month of "training" (i.e. indoctrination) prior to the conflict with the battalion/company/outfit with which they are embedded. To further ensure that their loyalties lie in the right place, all of their reports are monitored and screened by the commanding officer before being cleared for broadcast.

So far, I believe two embedded journalists have been sent home for giving sensitive information that endagered the lives of soldiers during live reports to news anchors. One journalist said "I am 100 miles south of Baghdad." Apparently that was too specific for Central Command and the journalist was immediately dismissed. By the way, I live about 100 miles south of Tokyo. A hundred bucks says that based on this information, you could lob 1000 Tomohawk missiles in my direction from your location and not hit me.

The uninformative and biased reporting of the embedded journalists has been well documented elsewhere so I won't go into it here. Suffice to say, it is another lame attempt by the current American government to tell its people that its polices are protecting and expanding their "freedom" and "liberties" when in fact, the country is becoming more and more like a police state everyday.

By the way, many journalists (Americans among them) have complained that the American military has been very harsh and heavy handed with non-embedded journalists that they encounter in the field. Not surprising, since the stories that these journalists report cannot be properly censored.

Evidence to this fact is the much publicized story (outside of America) about two Portuguese "non-embedded journalists" and their harrowing ordeal last week. In short, they were beaten, robbed, illegally detained and deported by American forces. They had as much right to be in Iraq as embedded journalists and possessed all necessary documentation to illustrate this fact. I believe The Guardian ran a story about them a couple days ago if you want to read about it yourself.

In short, "embedded journalist" is more than just a catchy buzzword. It is another attempt to shield the TV watching public from reality, all the while telling them that they are being given "unprecedented" and "minute by minute" coverage of the war. It is a shame, of course, that so many people appear to be buying such nonsense. It is a downright disgrace and disservice that the major American media outlets are not emphatically demanding that they be given the right to do their job independent of such blatant government censorship. They are an embarassement to the proud legacy of their profession.

Thought I would chip in my pennysworth in to this issue,it is relevent and says a lot about the language we teach wherever we are, that like others I take an interest in the news and the way things are reported,specially when I live in a country close by,unlike the orginal poster I have access to a number of channels and it is quite amusing to compare and contrast the different styles used and the way we receive the news . This latest word is just another that we have come to accept that seems to happen all to often and as one earlier poster said the use of " folks" has jumped up a few notches even the name COL-&#304;N has now changed to CO-L&#304;N and it sounds more like something that gets irrigated by the rich and famous instead of a name. I once read a posting that listed the reasons many people had a deep hatred and mistrust of the Americans and their culture and apart from all the well known ones relating to conflicts overseas their use or more correctly misuse of my beloved language ranks pretty high,that does not mean I am pro-tourist as someone in the white house might say,its just that this goes on every day and there is always some new media speak or jargon that we are expected to swallow and adopt.Frankly I am sick and tired of the percieved notion that the one almighty and overly powerful stinking rich country can not only dictate its will overseas to people it doesn't give a toss about but also tell us how we should speak,listening to the interviews given by members of their armed forces its clear to see that their education leaves a lot to be desired who the hell gave them the right to mess up our language as well, thats all for now thank you and good night .

Isn't it just plain slang by those in power, i.e. military speak with a florish? During the Afghanistan war, they popularised the term 'daisy cutters'. When the McCarthyists raged and ran amuck, everyone was either "American" or a "commie". Now it is "with us or against us..."!
One is really proud for not being "with us"!

Hi again
It looks like the latest news is full of the conquest of Baghdad and reporters are in the thick of it ,I saw the U.S flag draped over a statue of S.H before it was pulled down apparently it was from the pentagon after the 9/11 attack pretty powerful stuff,all this is going to do is increase anti western sentiment I think the M.E problems are far from over no doubt some glib expression will be invented to encapsulate it ,PLEASEEE NO !!

There are known knowns .These are things we know and there are known unknowns,that is to say,there are things we know we don't know .But there are also unknow unknowns, there are things we don't know we don't know !!!

Apparently this was a certain secretary of defence CLAR&#304;FY&#304;NG yes clarifying U.S policy on the Iraq war at a pentagon briefing on the 10th March. Makes you think doesn't it? As an exercise in total bollocks I think that takes the perverbal biscuit what are these people doing to my language??????